Archives for category: Teachers and Teaching

John Flavin teaches language arts in a rural high school in Oregon.

He wrote this article for Oregonlive.com explaining what really matters in school reform.

Time and resources for teachers to prepare for the flood of federal mandates.

Class sizes of 22 or less. In his school, some classes have more than 40 students.

A restoration of options and electives. He wrote: “All across America students are stripped of drama, band, wood and metal shops, and dozens of other career-starters designed to serve a diverse population.”

A de-emphasis on standardized tests,which harm children with high needs.

He concludes:

“If you’re not a teacher, you ought to be saying to yourself: The enemy of America’s future is anyone who is opposed to guaranteed classroom sizes of 22 or less, increased professional development for teachers, diversified options for students and the elimination of standardized tests as we know them.”

Something magical is happening in San Diego. It is a good school district. Teachers and administrators and the school board are working towards common goals.

San Diego, in my view, is the best urban district in the nation.

I say this not based on test scores but on the climate for teaching and learning that I have observed in San Diego.

It’s not the weather, which of course is usually magnificent. Los Angeles too has great weather but it is constantly embroiled in turmoil, with teachers against administrators, the school board divided, and political tensions underlying every decision and policy.

San Diego went through its time of troubles in the late 1990s and early 2000s (I wrote about it in my next to last book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, in which I devoted a chapter to the upheaval in San Diego, where corporate-style, top-down reform was birthed).

But in recent years, San Diego has elected a school board that works harmoniously with the teachers and their union. Until recently, it had a superintendent, Bill Kowba (a retired Navy admiral) who understood the value of teamwork. And with the leadership of an activist board, a new spirit of community-based reform began to take hold.

Scores went up on almost everything that was tested, but that was not what mattered most to the new (and true) reformers in San Diego. The rising test scores were the result of the new spirit of community-building that included parents, students, teachers, administrators, and the local community.

San Diego, of course, rejected Race to the Top funding. It didn’t want to make test scores more consequential than they already were.

When Superintendent Kowba retired, the San Diego school board met and immediately announced their choice of a new superintendent, without conducting a national search. The board asked Cindy Marten, one of the district’s best elementary school principals, to assume the superintendency. She was stunned, and she chastised them for not casting a wider net. But she took the job.

Cindy is a leader. She knows how to inspire and lead. She respects the work of principals and teachers, and they respect her. She also knows the importance of parent and community engagement.

Her motto, which is a playful twist on the KIPP motto is: “Work Hard. Be Kind. Dream Big! No Excuses.”

No matter how sunny the skies for the schools, no matter how harmonious the educators, parents, and children, the business community is grumpy. It can’t get over the fact that San Diego doesn’t have a brash, disruptive superintendent who wants to test the kids until they cry “uncle,” demean the teachers, and hold everyone’s feet to the fire. It can’t accept that there is any other way to lead the schools. And it can’t give up on its favorite meme that the schools are “failing” even though they are not.

These views were expressed full force recently when the San Diego Union Tribune, a deeply conservative newspaper, penned an editorial longing for the good old days when Terry Grier was superintendent. The UT can’t believe that San Diego let him go, let him move to Houston, where he is following the corporate reform script, handing out bonuses, firing teachers, using test scores as a club to beat up teachers. Talk about being a skunk at the garden party! The UT published an editorial lamenting “what might have been” if only Grier had stayed around in San Diego to do what he is doing now in Houston.

There was pushback. One board member wrote a letter to the editor pointing out that the dropout rate in Houston was nearly double the dropout rate in San Diego and commending Cindy Marten for avoiding the polarizing tactics associated with certain other unnamed superintendents.

But whoa! There are also some basic facts that the Union Tribune should have noticed. On the 2013 NAEP, San Diego’s public schools outperform those of Houston in math and reading, in grades 4 and 8. San Diego is in the top tier of urban districts; Houston is not. San Diego’s scores on the NAEP have steadily improved over the past decade. The proportion of students who score “below basic” has dropped significantly, and the proportion who score at or above proficient has increased significantly over the past decade. Why does the UT envy a lower-performing district and dismiss the solid, steady, persistent gains of its own district?

Michael Casserly, the fair-minded and careful leader of the Council of Great City Schools wrote an article for the newspaper applauding the success of San Diego and the leadership of Cindy Marten, but the Union Tribute failed to publish it.

Doug Porter of the San Diego Free Press wrote up the imbroglio and called out the UT for its humbug and hypocrisy. He aptly called his article “Facts Don’t Matter in Newspaper’s Quest to Demonize Public Education in San Diego.”

He wrote:

Talk about your cheap shots. It was bad enough when the UT-San Diego editorial board whipped up an attack on our city’s schools laden with misstatements, factual errors and a personal attack on Superintendent Cindy Marten. But when a nationally recognized education leader stepped forward to correct the record on her behalf, his response was deemed unworthy for publication.

It’ all very Orwellian; reality isn’t simply what Papa Doug Manchester tries to tell us it is. When his minions refuse to acknowledge something, the idea is for you to believe that it never happened.

One of the longest running narratives with our Daily Newspaper has been their dislike for the Board of Trustees at San Diego Unified. The paper’s ‘reform’ agenda for public education mirrors the libertarian/conservative wet dream of privatized charter schools, a change that means monetizing learning for corporate interests and creating a two-tiered system favoring the wealthier (and white) classes.

The reality that voters have elected and re-elected progressives to a school board that refuses to demonize teachers and puts the classroom first just is too much for them to handle. So this hatchet job is consistent with their refusal to acknowledge that SD Unified is making steady, determined progress (and is, in fact, a national leader among urban school districts).

Porter includes the full text of Mike Casserley’s supportive article about the steady progress of the San Diego public schools. This is my favorite line from his letter chastising the San Diego UT:

“So, pining for a previous superintendent is not only an affront to Ms. Marten but is akin to daydreaming about a former lover on your honeymoon.”

Porter makes only one mistake. He suggests that the school district engaged in “puffery” when it talked about its steady improvement on NAEP. I disagree. San Diego has made steady progress. On most NAEP measures, it outperforms other large city districts. This is a record to be proud of, not puffery.

San Diego now has the political climate that every district should have: a wise and experienced educator as leader; a collaborative relationship among administrators, teachers, the union, and the school board; a sense of vision about improving the education of every child and a determination to provide a good public school in every neighborhood. This is a vision far, far from the reformy effort to close down public schools and replace them with a free market. Unlike Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, and most other urban districts, San Diego has the right vision, the right climate, and the right leadership. There is a unity of purpose focused on children that is impressive.

And that is why San Diego at this moment in time is the best urban district in the nation.

When Governor Jim Hunt was in office, he was a national leader on behalf of improving education. He advocated for higher teacher salaries, he advocated for early childhood education, and he took pride in the steady improvement in North Carolina during his tenure.

Now he runs the Hunt Institute, which has been active in teaching governors across the nation about education issues.

I was a member of the board of the Hunt Institute for a few years (I left in 2009), and I was impressed by Governor Hunt’s sincere concern for public education and his gracious style of interacting with others.

Just recently, he wrote an editorial calling on the Legislature to raise the salaries of teachers in North Carolina, as he did in his time, so that they met the national average (NC now ranks 46th in the nation).

That was a good thing to do, but Governor Hunt said nothing about the giant wrecking ball that the far-right Legislature has taken to public education and to the teaching profession. He didn’t mention the Legislature’s rapid expansion of privately managed charters, many of which will have for-profit companies running them; he said nothing about vouchers for religious schools and home-schooling; he said nothing about the Legislature taking away stipends for graduate degrees or about the appropriation of $6 million for Teach for America at the same time that the budget for the NC Teaching Fellows program was cut, or about any of the other bills passed with the intention of humbling teachers.

Please, Governor Hunt, speak up for the teachers. Speak up for the children. Speak up for public education. You are such a respected figure in the state. Your voice can make a difference.

This last year, the legislature and governor in North Carolina enacted legislation affecting the teaching profession in North Carolina.

Scott Imig and Robert Smith at the University of North Carolina in Wilmington decided that it was important to hear how the legislation affected those in the state’s schools:

They wrote:

In the summer of 2013, the North Carolina legislature passed broad educational reforms. Among these were the abolishment of tenure, the end of additional compensation for teachers who earn a graduate degree, removal of class size caps, and implementation of a voucher program. As professors who interact daily with current K-12 educators, we heard numerous anecdotes this fall about declining support for public education, increased teacher attrition, deteriorating morale, and concerns about pursuing advanced degrees. While the anecdotes were fairly consistent, there was not, to our knowledge, available data that captured the immediate and potential long-term effects of the policy changes. 

Imig and Smith surveyed more than 600 educators in the state to get their perspective on the changes. Their report is titled “Listening to Those on the Front Lines.”

Here is what they found.

• Over 96% of the educators who participated think public education in North Carolina is headed in the wrong direction.

• Two-thirds of teachers and administrators indicated that recent legislative changes have negatively impacted the quality of teaching and learning in their own school.

• Over 74% of respondents indicated that, as a result of the legislative changes, they were less likely to continue working as a teacher/administrator in NC.

• 97% of respondents think the legislative changes have had a negative effect on teacher morale.

• 98% of teachers and administrators surveyed believe that the removal of financial incentives for pursuing advanced degrees will have a negative effect on the quality of teaching and learning in North Carolina’s schools.

• Nearly all respondents indicated that the failure to give teachers a raise in pay will have a negative impact on the quality of public education.

• Ninety percent of teachers and administrators indicated that the removal of tenure, with all teachers placed on 1-, 2-, or 4-year contracts by 2018, will have a negative effect on the quality of public education in NC.

• In regard to the legislature’s plan to eliminate tenure and identify the top 25% of teachers for annual pay raises, approximately 7% of teachers indicated they would give up tenure in exchange for the supplement (64% would not give up tenure and 28% are uncertain).

• 38% of respondents believe the Read to Achieve Program will have a positive impact on the quality of education in the state. Among elementary teachers, this figure is just 20%.

• A significant portion of teacher and administrator comments described working harder to protect students from the perceived effects of the recent legislative changes.

• Nearly 87% of respondents think the voucher plan, providing eligible families with a $4,200 annual voucher to allow a child to go to a private school, will have a negative impact on the state’s public schools. 

What are the chances that the governor and the legislature will care what teachers and administrators think about their legislation?

In this post, a veteran teacher with 30 years of experience explains why she had to retire. She didn’t want to. But the obsession with data-based decision-making finally broke her spirit.

She recounts incidents where she was able to help students, where students gave her their trust, where classes learned to love literature as she did. She remembers staff meetings devoted to lessons and students, not to data analysis. As all the rewarding parts of her work were eliminated, she realized that the reforms made it I possible to do what she loved est: to teach.

She writes:

“I remember a time when department meetings, faculty meetings, and in-service days revolved around reading, sharing ideas, learning about our subjects—and not around the only topics that seem to matter today: lesson plan format, testing, rubrics, teacher evaluations and technological gimmicks. Watch your back! If you don’t conform it will be held against you!

“I remember AP students who told me their lives were changed after reading Hamlet, or Beloved, or Middlemarch. Is there a metric for that, or is a score on the AP exam the only thing that counts? Yes, we did lots of close reading, but is that what students will remember?

“Mostly I remember a time when I could be creative, do lots of research, veer off in different but related directions, have discussions, allow students to talk about how they feel (yes, David Coleman), and even lecture occasionally, without worrying if I covered every one of the myriad points in the Danielson model in EVERY lesson.

“I am so sad when I read that students, teachers, and schools are labeled “failures.” I am bewildered when I read statements from “reformers” with no background in child development writing standards, arbitrarily setting cut scores, misinterpreting test results, making flawed comparisons with other countries, giving only lip service to parents, and blaming teachers for every ill in society. I am angry when I think of people with no background in education (i.e. politicians from BOTH parties and businesspeople) condescending to, insulting, and even vilifying teachers, whose job is more difficult, challenging, and complex than anyone who has never tried it can imagine.”

Read it all. Get angry. Take action. Find allies. Join your state or local group to resist these terrible trends that destroy the love of teaching and learning. Join the Network for Public Education.

2013 was a horrible year for teachers and public schools in North Carolina.

The legislature and the governor passed bill after bill intended to demoralize teachers, defund public schools, and expand the transfer of public funds to privately managed schools, private schools, and religious schools.

Here, Lindsay Wagner of NC Policy Watch describes the nine actions that were intended to crush public school teachers and privatize public education.

The movement to snuff out public education begins by funneling public dollars to private schools, home schools, and charter schools, none of which are accountable for their spending or actions.

Then it starts the dismantling of the teaching profession by turning teachers into temps, removing any due process rights.

Into the mix, increase the amount and importance of standardized testing.

And meanwhile, cut the budgets of public schools and higher education.

It’s time to quote Garrison Keillor again. I may have to quote him once a week.

“When you wage war on the public schools, you’re attacking the mortar that holds the community together. You’re not a conservative, you’re a vandal.”

― Garrison Keillor, “Homegrown Democrat: A Few Plain Thoughts from the Heart of America”

Conservatives don’t destroy their community’s public schools. Conservatives don’t blow up traditional and beloved institutions.

Conservatives don’t place the free market above human values.

In North Carolina, the cultural vandals control the state.

Peg Robertson, one of the leading figures in the Opt Out movement, here writes movingly about her own experiences as a teacher, struggling to do her best for her students in an atmosphere dominated by corporate reform ideas.

She writes about the family that shaped her views about education.

She offers practical and wise suggestions for every teacher in the same predicament.

This is an action guide that every teacher will enjoy reading.

Read what she says, share it, and listen to her words of wisdom.

Paul Thomas taught high school for nearly two decades befor he became a professor at Furman University in South Carolina. He understands the dilemma of teachers caught between Scylla and Charydis, now known as a rock and a hard place. The dilemma arises when federal and state mandates require teachers to act in ways that violate their professional ethics. Thomas has specific advice to help teachers navigate the rough waters created by unethical, unprofessional demands.

What I have often said to teachers, echoing what Thomas advises, is to comply if you must but hold on to your values. Stay true to what you know is right for your students and have faith that this dark night of test abuse, child abuse, and teacher abuse will end, as it must. It will end because it is fruitless and punitive and antithetical to true education. Become a BAT if you dare.. Join the Network for Public Education. Do not jeopardize your livelihood but find allies and do what you can to hasten the day when reason, evidence, and professionalism are once again ascendant in education.

Ray Salazar, a teacher in Chicago, wrote a blog post asking me to respond to four questions. I will try to do that here. I am not sure I will accurately characterize his questions, so be sure to read his post before you read my responses.

Before I start, let me say that he obviously hasn’t read my book Reign of Error. Consequently, he relies on a five-minute interview on the Jon Stewart show and a 30-minute interview on NPR’s Morning Edition to characterize my views. Surely, he knows that sound bites–which is what you hear on radio and television–are not a full representation of one’s life work or message. I am very disappointed that he did not read my book, because if he had, he would have been able to answer the questions he posed to me, and he might have asked different questions, or at least been better informed about my views and the evidence for them.

First, he objects to my statement that poverty is the most important predictor of poor academic performance, even though it is empirically accurate. He claims I am making excuses for poor teaching and that I am saying that we can’t fix schools until we eliminate poverty. But in my book, I make clear that we must both reduce poverty and improve schools, not choose one over the other. He says that teachers can’t reduce poverty, can’t reduce class size, can’t control who takes arts classes, and have no control over external circumstances. This is true, but he doesn’t seem to recognize that my book was not written as a teachers’ guide, but as a guide to national and state policy. Policymakers do control class size; do control resources; do make decisions that either lift children and families out of poverty, or shrug and say “let the schools do it.” There is no nation in the world where school reform has ended poverty, nor will school reform end it here. Salazar does not seem to understand that I am trying to open the minds of Congressmen, Senators, Cabinet officials, Governors, and State Legislatures, that I want them to take action to improve the lives of children and families; I want them to understand that they should not be cutting the jobs of librarians and nurses and increasing class sizes, and they should not be tying teachers’ compensation to test scores. I agree with Salazar that teachers make a huge difference in the lives of children, but I want him to acknowledge that the deck is stacked against poor children. It is stacked by circumstances, and it is stacked by our schools’ obsessive reliance on standardized tests. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. Bell curves do not produce equality of educational opportunity. They favor the advantaged over the disadvantaged. We as a society have an obligation to do something about it. He would understand all this far better if he read my book instead of listening to a TV show and a radio program.

His second point accuses me of opposing standards because I do not support the Common Core standards. That is ridiculous. I support standards, but I don’t support the federal imposition of standards that were written mostly by non-educators, that were adopted because of a federal inducement of billions of dollars, that have never been tested anywhere, and that–as the tests aligned to them are rolled out–cause the scores of students with the highest needs to collapse. In New York, for example, 3% of English learners passed the Common Core tests, along with 5% of students with disabilities, and less than 20% of African American and Hispanic students. The two major testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education selected NAEP proficient as the cut score (passing mark) for their tests; that is an unwarranted decision, because NAEP proficient was never intended to be a passing mark for state tests. It represents “solid academic achievement,” not “passing.” Only in one state–Massachusettts–have as many as 50% of students reached the 50% mark on NAEP proficient. Thus, the testing consortia will either be compelled to drop the cut score (and claim progress and victory) or more than 50% of students in the U.S. (and far more in urban districts like Chicago) will never earn a high school diploma. Of course, I want to see students in Chicago and every other urban district reach high levels of performance, but that won’t happen until politicians stop cutting the school budget, stop laying off teachers, ensure that every school has the resources it needs for the students it enrolls, stop using test scores for high-stakes for students, teachers and schools, and make sure that all children have food security, access to medical care, and the basic necessities of life. Salazar seems to suggest that poverty doesn’t matter all that much, as long as teachers are creating a “college-going” culture. In effect, he is shifting blame to teachers for failing to create such a culture; but no school can create such a culture without the tools and resources and staff to do it.

Third, Salazar criticizes my concern that school choice is intended to create a marketplace of charters, leading to a dual school system. He wants more school choice. I don’t think school choice answers the fundamental challenge to school leaders: how can they create good public schools in every neighborhood? That is their duty and their obligation. Salazar says that good neighborhood schools don’t exist now, and I agree. But choice won’t bring the change we need. It will create a competition for a few good placements, but it wont create more good schools. Choice does not improve neighborhood schools. it abandons them. We will never have good neighborhood schools if we create a system where all kids are on school buses in search of a better school. In some cities, it is the schools that do the choosing, not the students or their families. Many of those “schools of choice” don’t want the kids who will pull down their all-important scores. So, what should happen right now? The mayors of big cities who want to be education leaders should make sure that every school has the resources it needs: the teachers, librarians, social workers, nurses, after-school programs, summer programs, small classes, arts classes, physical education, foreign languages, etc. In a choice system, it is left to students to find a school that will accept them and hope it is better than the one in their neighborhood. I say that students, parents, educators, and communities must demand that the politicians invest in improving every school. As Pasi Sahlberg, the great Finnish expert, has said about his nation’s schools, “we aimed for equity, and we got excellence.” As for Ray’s crack about my “choices,” I attended neighborhood schools: Montrose Elementary School; Sutton Elementary School; Albert Sidney Johnston Jr. High School; and San Jacinto High School. Were they the best schools in Houston? I have no idea. They were good neighborhood schools.

In his fourth point, Salazar repeats his belief that there is both a poverty crisis and an educational crisis. I agree. If he read my book, he would know that. The poverty crisis created the educational crisis. If we ignore the poverty crisis, we will never solve the educational crisis.

A question from a reader:

Hi Ms. Ravitch,

As a young person (about to finish undergrad) interested in potentially becoming a teacher but with a lack of formal educational training, I’m wondering if you might have some recommendations for me, for strong fellowship/teacher-training programs.

TFA doesn’t seem to provide enough support to its teachers (and in so doing, to the students they teach). Working for a huge corporately-run charter school (even if it does provide more support than TFA would for newbies) doesn’t seem fair either, particularly when it takes up building space, doesn’t train a culturally-sensitive or critical-thinking approach to teaching, and siphons money away from public schools. Trying NYC Teaching Fellows looks like it might also be a bust, for lots of the same reasons that TFA is. Is there ANYWHERE I can go with little prior formal teaching education to get a fair, supportive, and well-structured start to a future teaching career, or should I just go back to school?

Thanks for your advice,

Pendle